9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Assessment of customs duty, power of review under Customs Act, completion of assessment, invoking Article 226, obligation of Customs authorities to grant entry inward, interpretation of "entry inward."
Analysis: 1. The petitioner imported consignments of Australian Greecy Wool and paid customs duty at 45%. Subsequently, the duty was increased to 75%, leading to a dispute regarding the assessment of duty and refund applications. 2. Mr. Chinoy argued that the assessment completed at 45% on 15th June 1977 could not be reviewed to raise the duty to 75%, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Patel Chunibhai Dajibhai v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar. He contended that the assessment process was finalized upon quantifying the duty, and there was no power of review under the Customs Act. 3. Mr. Dhanuka, representing the respondents, disputed the completion of assessment on 15th June 1977, stating that the vessel's import general manifest was filed on 16th June 1977, and entry inward was granted on 20th June 1977. He argued that the assessment was incomplete until the vessel was granted entry inward. 4. The judge observed that while the duty rate was noted on the bills of entry on 15th June 1977, the assessment should not have been considered complete as the import general manifest was not filed, and entry inward was not granted. The judge emphasized that invoking Article 226 to avoid paying the correct duty amount was not permissible. 5. Mr. Chinoy contended that the Customs authorities were obligated to grant entry inward promptly upon receiving the import general manifest. He argued that the delay in granting entry inward should not allow the authorities to claim a higher duty rate. However, the judge did not find a statutory obligation to grant entry inward within a specific timeframe. 6. Mr. Chinoy further argued against the Customs authorities' interpretation of "entry inward," claiming it was arbitrary. The judge, however, found no alternative interpretation presented to dispute the authorities' understanding of the term. 7. In conclusion, the petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The judge held that the assessment process was incomplete on 15th June 1977, and the petitioner could not use legal proceedings to avoid paying the correct duty amount. The obligation to grant entry inward promptly was not found to be a statutory requirement.
|
